ZenDen wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Weird, isn't it? It's almost as though members from the UK who post in this thread have no actual legislative power in the running of the UK.
It's also almost as though the people from the UK who post here do not necessarily endorse their government's attitude to and treatment of refugees, and perhaps might be involved in campaigns against this attitude and treatment.
It's further almost as though what Trump has said on the matter of immigration and refugees and Muslims may be criticised on its own terms, without having to come from a place of historical purity or a moral high ground.
I have not seen any attempt at a moral high ground in this thread. Could you quote such?
"In what way have these rights been attacked? They apply only in regard to the actions of the US government. Trumps right to free speech is no more under attack were he banned from the UK for what he's said..."
Except, in this country (yours too?), unless you're preaching armed sedition (or some such), the United States will not ban you from entry. We feel the mere farce of Parliamentary discussion as though this were a serious manner is offensive. How could you (we) know this watching TV, movies, and online chats? We can't, which means sometimes friction develops between cultures (thank goodness we don't need to bomb each other).
So, unless someone has a major change of heart Trump's not to be banned, so everyone happy? I know I am.
That bit in quote marks - was that meant to be a 'moral high ground' thing? That was in response to your saying Trump's First Amendment rights were being attacked. The First Amendment is only in regard to the US government. Every country in the world other than the US could ban Trump from entering and indeed order a blanket ban on reporting of what he's said - his First Amendment rights would
still not be affected. Do you see?
And it is a serious matter. Trump talks an awful lot of s**t, and could well end up POTUS. Some of us here in the 51st state - I live in Wales - are a bit anxious about that.
From the article the OP cites and links to:
Quote:
Parliamentary power, however, isn't required to impose the "persona non grata" label. Home Secretary Theresa May can ban anyone who's been convicted of a crime and sent to prison or has broken immigration rules. If they are coming from outside the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), she can ban them if she considers their presence in the UK to be nonconducive to the public good.
In 2011, the U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who planned a Quran-burning protest, was barred on those grounds. Others who have been barred include Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky and ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen "Don" Black.
...
A petition to ban Trump was started by Suzanne Kelly, a freelance journalist in Aberdeen, Scotland, where Trump owns a nearby golf course and is a divisive figure. She was angry over Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Kelly's petition clearly hit a nerve, as it quickly gained enough signatures to be put forward as a topic of debate in Parliament. More than 575,000 people have signed it.
The debate is nonbinding, though. No vote of any kind will be held, so there will be no substantive result. In fact, opposition lawmaker Paul Flynn, who's leading the debate, thinks a ban could be counterproductive, as it could make Trump seem unfairly victimized and boost him in the eyes of Americans.
...
There's no sign the home secretary will ban Trump, but that doesn't mean she agrees with him. She has said his remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong, but the government has also said that exclusion powers are very serious and are not to be used lightly.
Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't support the ban, even though he called Trump's proposal to keep Muslims out of the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong." For good measure, he added, "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/polit ... ngdom-ban/
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
25 Jan 2016, 7:43 pm
